5 ms·
Microsoft is, generally, very very good at backward compatibility.
by c0nsumer 2y ago
Microsoft is, generally, very very good at backward compatibility.
- bobmcnamara 2y agoIndeed, PE+Wine is the most stable Linux ABI.
- lmm 2y agoThat's because Linux is remarkably bad at backward compatibility rather than Windows being remarkably good at it. FreeBSD's stable ABI is if anything better than PE+Wine.
- zinekeller 2y agoThat's too much overbearing for Linux, as the kernel itself tries to maintain backwards compatibility (for userland). It's everything else that breaks backwards compatibility (looking at the most egregious, Gnome, although there are many system-level libraries sharing the blame for this).
- pjmlp 2y agoAs are most commercial UNIXes.
- redeeman 2y agonothing stops you from using the old libraries and all that stuff forever?
- lmm 2y agoLinux distributions tend not to ship them - AIUI there is some unique problem with linux ld that makes it harder to have multiple versions of the same library installed. And lately there's a lot of tight coupling in the whole kernel/udev (or hal, remember hal?)/systemd chain, so even if old dynamic libraries are available, old dbus services might not be and you end up in much the same place.
- hulitu 2y ago> Microsoft is, generally, very very good at backward compatibility. It was. A long time ago. Running old games in Win10 has become a big challenge.